Willing to Change (part 2)

As I consider the church's relationship to change, I think we may also be talking about the church's relationship with "the world". The world is constantly changing. The church is constantly faced with the question of how to respond to change.

There are a few different ways in which we may categorise our reponses:

Defensiveness: The defensive position regards the world as essetially dangerous and so we must relate to the world (and change) with extreme caution. This position is likely to build walls, and to surround itself with arguments which support the decision to stay safely behind those walls. The image here is of a Castle, beseiged by the enemy.

Conformity: This position is the opposite extreme. Change is seen as reflective of fashion - what is "in" and socially acceptable. This position responds to change by bending and flexing and staying very close to trends and new developments etc.

What is interesting is that BOTH these position are motivated by fear. Defensiveness is motivated by a basic fear of the world - that what we have will be lost in the process of change. Defensiveness will hold on to what it has, rather than risk losing everything in a risky relationship with change. Conformity is no les fearful. It may seem courageous because it is so open to change, but it is also motivated by a fear - the fear of being "out", of being rejected or socially unaccpetable. Conformity longs for acceptance and a place of belonging and expresses that fear by remaning religiously committed to staying in touch with what is fashionable...

Is there another option, that is not motivated by fear?

A position of Vulnerability (or openness) neither feels the need to be defensive - it can listen and consider what change may be offering - nor the need to conform. Vulnerability and oppenness can listen and consider things, but does not need to conform nor defend, precisely because it is not afraid. It takes an exceptionally strong person to embody the vulenrable position. It is best modelled by Jesus who lived vulnerably (taking regular criticism from the religious leaders) and with great openness (often spending time with sinners and social outcasts). Jesus was not afraid of death, nor of developing a bad social reputation. But on this value of openness and vulenerability, he did not budge.

What would it mean for the churc to adopt the Vulnerable position, say in relation to a Sex-worker, or a person in a same-sex relationship?